Category Archives: Dogs

Cats vs Dogs… Duncan Garner, Gareth Morgan. All aboard the Dystopian Juggernaut.


The price of Liberty is eternal vigilance.
Populations who care more about keeping up with the Kardashians… societies who elevate Sports celebrities to the highest honors, yet say nothing about the creeping encroachments upon personal freedom that works like rust… are a ship of fools…robbing their children of their rights and full enjoyment of life.
The Lipoma of Obese Government will be born on their childrens backs like a crippling hunch when they are old enough to be Tax enslaved.
Future generations will never know the Freedoms that we enjoyed but failed to defend… because we foolishly believed that Security was more important than Freedom and so we allowed the Government to steal it away from us… following Loud mouth fools.

A certain class among us are even more responsible for this Dystopian slide than the average sleepy wooly fool… they are the professional phobia mongers and Media personalities whom actively promote the Corrosion of our freedoms.

Hour by hour they find new things to rant and rave about and how Nanny state needs ‘to do something’.


(^I did not generate that!… He’s a Famous Arsehole! 🙂 )

In recent days the mind numbingly boring Card board cut-out of a human being Duncan Garner has said… “I hates Pitt Bulls, Ban them.”

“A 7-year-old boy had surgery after being savaged by his uncle’s dog in the south Auckland suburb of Takanini yesterday.

The Association of Plastic Surgeons have said they are seeing at least two dog bite injuries a week.

How many more children need to be attacked and possibly killed before someone takes decisive action. The law no longer works.

We need to ban pitbulls, fullstop. No ifs, no buts, no maybes.”


Without question, these sorts of attacks are terrible, yet is Duncans call to outlaw the Breed a rational solution that deserves serious consideration?

I want propose to you that it is *not a rational solution at all*, but Knee-jerk, childishly simplistic, and part of a far greater evil that is befalling our society.
His call for heavy handed political action is symptomatic of a disturbing lack of respect for Freedom, and the quality of life that Freedom facilitates.

The sheeple are so easily led down the path via their emotions and fears so that not only does freedom deteriorate under the onslaught of Nanny State tyranny, but so does the quality of everything get sacrificed to political agendas and Social engineering…. and thus despite the pretense that Socialism is supposed to care and improve things… in reality *our quality of life* gets degraded.
Eco-Greenism has resulted in ‘energy efficient’dishwashers that dont wash our dishes.
Any Sugar Taxes will result in horrible tasting …less enjoyable food… or food that has industrial chemical additives… sweetners that will be found to be much more dangerous than Sugar… yet dont quite taste so sweet.
All Politically engineered ‘epidemics’.

And with all this mayhem…. few contemplate that 90% of the perceived ‘troubles’ are caused by a politically manufactured lack of self responsibility amongst the population, and the growing parasitic Political class who exist to tyranise and micro-manage our lives…. all under Auspices of the State education system!

Not only does the Education system fail to promote the development of a society of self reliant, self responsible Adults, But mass produces Sheepishly dependent drones that cant think for themselves… little Government worshiping morons… who nod in unison every time Gareth and Duncan call for more laws and prohibitions.

More on State Education >here

classic kiwi

Just the other day a facebook page called ‘Classic Kiwi’ posted a photo (above) of a string of Double happy fire crackers… and those of us old enough to know … got a rush of Joy…. simply from remembering how great Guy Fawkes night used to be… before the wowzers had them banned… sky rockets and Bonfires too!
Even in Cities there was usually a bonfire built in the local reserve and it was one of the few occasions when the neighborhood got together for a celebration.
We kids all got burned at least once… yet it was worth it!
Today’s Kids have been robbed of this in the name of Nanny State cotton wool, and Intolerance.
Many People today simply cannot contemplate such Free expression.
Some Kids did actually get seriously burned, yet everyone of us learned about management of risk, to enjoy life by being responsible and careful… and we all accepted the risks… and had a ball!

Today we have a society of Whiners and complainers.
Everything is too noisy!
As more and more Nanny state laws have been past… the more irresponsible, foolish, slavish, and intolerant our society has become.


Duncan is behaving like a Bigot… a racist… against a race of Dogs… the majority of whom are guilty of no evil and are the beloved pets and family members to many Kiwi’s.
Yet he does not want to contemplate that.

And one of the reasons I decided to blog about His Anti-Pitt bull campaign is because he needs to be exposed for the hypocrite that he is.
Let me explain. (Ref: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 CATS: GARETH MORGAN’S GONE BONKERS)

3 years ago Duncan thought a great topic for his Radio show would be to Tear strips off Public Menace Gareth Morgan for doing exactly what he is himself doing with regards to Banning Pit bulls… except Gareth’s target was Domestic Cats, and he wanted them Banned for the sake of ‘saving New Zealands’ native birds.
Immediately Duncan went on the offensive… calling Morgans Ban ‘Bonkers’.
I suspect *He* has a cat *he loves* and the Ban his mate Gareth was proposing *was a threat to *His family pet!*
You see for once a suggested prohibition was going to adversely affect *his enjoyment* and possibly kill *His animal friend*.
I would like to congratulate Duncan in this case for Rallying the people to oppose Gareth, yet it is obvious he did not do this from any principle, as he does not give a shit about people who love their Pet pit bulls…. dogs that have not committed any crimes at all…. yet are under threat from Mob outrage and Political oppression simply because they are a breed Duncan himself does not personally like but seeks to lay collective blame, and vent his paranoia.

I dont even believe Pitt Bulls are Statistically the most violent breed, or guilty of the most attacks.
From Memory that infamy belongs to little Fox Terriers., yet they dont conjure up the same terror in the minds of the sheeple
Yet Tyranny creeps in once it has it’s foot in the door… you can be sure that
“first they came for the Pitt Bulls”… yet my dog was not a Pittbull… so I did nothing.
Next they came for the Foxys….
No Dog will be safe.

^ Bob Jones proposed this 5000mtr Statue be built in honor of Gareth Morgans “overwhelming wonderfulness”.

Can there be any doubt about how much value, pleasure, and love the million plus Cats in our country add to our lives?
Can there be any misunderstanding about how great a loss it would be to our quality of life if we allowed the Government to ban them?
Yes there is a cost involved regarding our native birds, and Garreth was quick to point out that cats carry nasty diseases that do affect human beings, yet most of us would prefer a much more sophisticated approach to these issues rather than loosing our right to own and enjoy cats.
The same logic ought to apply to managing the risks that living in a society that allows Dog ownership, because of the great value they add to our lives.

Pitbulls are like Double happy Fire Crackers, Jungle gyms and Bicycles… all part of the spice of life, though all of them are not 100% safe and require common sence… our society is better of *managing the risks they entail* than Banning them.
Having them in our society *Teaches self-responsibility*… and that is priceless…. indeed absolutely essential for a free and enlightened world.

I added Bicycles to this list because every year thousand of accidents and injuries occur from riding bikes, and many deaths too… yet few Nanny state evangelists of the likes of Morgan and Garner would dare to suggest Nanny State Ban them.
The Sheeple may be slumbering yet even they could be awoken from their Coma by such a suggestion.
So Stark would be the consequence of the loss of liberty.
And Bicycles have become sacrosanct under Political correctness as part of the state religion of the Eco-movement so PC wowzers turn a blind eye to negative realities when it suits their prejudiced agendas.

We may therefore assume that such an outrageous Ban (outlawing Bicycles) will never be proposed by our duo of social justice warriors or others of their ilk… despite the carnage…. because they are in fact not true leaders or original thinkers…. but *inconsistent Sheep themselves*… the sock puppets of the indoctrinated common herd mentality that thinks it is the duty of government to Shepard them.


Garner was in safe territory attacking Pitt bulls because while Few New Zealanders own them… many have phobias about them … phobias that the media love to capitalise on. Garner makes his living by always being on the hunt for Sensational stories that provoke popular public outrage. And the Pitt Bull Story suits his purposes exactly.
This is actually why he for once went on the offensive against one of his own… Gareth Morgan’s suggestion to get rid of Cats.
It was not because Garner has any sence of the importance of freedom, but was a story that he knew he could capitialise off public outrage…. and I suspect he owns and loves at least one cat himself… so *This prohibition* threatens *His freedom* His rights *His happiness*…

Morgan of course was seeking to capitalize on the popular Kiwi love of Native Birds… and wants to be thought of as a Hero.
Morgan likewise is a Sheep and Paranoia monger , with zero respect for our freedom, and a penchant for lobbying for more Laws and prohibitions


Duncan Garner should swallow some of his own Medicine that he himself prescribed to Mad Morgan … leave Pitt Bulls be…nor should he be surprised that some people dont take his threats against the lives of their beloved companions lightly… and have threatened to respond in kind

Morgan and Garner are so dopey as to think they are the enlightened champions of a Brighter Future when in fact they are leading the sheeple down the road straight to hell.
No Dogs, No Cats, No Guy Fawkes, No Soda,No Jungle gyms, No Santa Parades, etc, etc, etc. Blar Blar Blar.
Quit Calling in the Fun Police you Wankers!

I am all for free press and free speech, open opinion, yet Both Duncan and Gareth demonstrate the endemic *Disdain for the Freedoms* we all enjoy and abuse their privileged positions they have as commentators on current affairs in New Zealand.
Like most of the trained minions on our Radio and TV…they are both have their values arse about face.
The Free press is not supposed to work as a propaganda wing for the State, but as a vanguard for Freedom!
That is the historical precedent for the Free press!
*Yet how rare it is to hear any voices speaking up for Freedom!
I dont believe they are fit for the incredibly important place a free press must occupy in a democratic society.
Their endless calls for prohibitions… their simpleton mentalities… their willingness to promote Mob frenzy to rile against their own rights and liberties proves they are unworthy of the name *Free press*
They have become the very opposite thing… the mouthpieces for political propaganda to increase the powers and spheres of the tyrants.
That is what happens when you get your education from Nanny State.

And evils of Socialism prosper in such an intolerant Cat vs Dog society of Bickering… that takes pleasure in summoning the Law to persecute their neighbors.

Read about the failure of the Free press >here


I dont accept that prohibiting Dogs is the only or best solution… but that Dog owners do need to up their game.
Pick up your shit!
You have a responsibility Keep your hounds under control at all times.
If you train them to be vicious, and they hurt somebody, not only should the dog be put down, But you should be prosecuted to the fullest extent.
If you know your dog has nasty tendencies you need to sort it out, keep it isolated… or even have it put down because it is inexcusable that any innocent children suffer because you did not control your dog and take the proper precautions
Even if your dog has never shown any aggressive behavior, you still need to be aware of the danger and take precautions at all times.
Yet still there will no doubt continue to be dog attacks, yet if we love freedom… we know that there is no such thing as 100% safety.
Dogs save far more people from thefts and violence than they themselves inflict.
Take away dogs, and you render more woman and old people defenseless… and alone.

When any tragic dog attack occurs…. Be angry at the Dogs that were actually involved… Be angry at the owners… dont loose the plot and blame all dogs, and dont allow yourselves to be led down the garden path by the Minions of Nanny State.

All Parents need to teach their Children to be Dog wise.
That is a whole subject in it’s own right in which everyone should familiarize themselves.
And how about also teaching your Children the principles of Inalienable rights and Liberties, and the just limits to political power… so that they have the tools to defend their own Freedom when they have become of Age… and defend their Children’s future form the State worshiping Phobia mongers and power trippers that will undoubtedly arise in their time.
The Price of Liberty will forever be Eternal Vigilance.

Tim Wikiriwhi.
Christian Libertarian.


Falling like flies


Such a great pic of David Jones fraternising with Ian Kilmister circa 1970. Too bad it’s photoshopped!

My brother Tim and I grew up listening to the likes of Pink Floyd and Black Sabbath. At our family lunch on Christmas Day I reiterated to him that I was still undecided about whether or not to go see Black Sabbath play Dunedin’s Forsyth Barr Stadium on 30 April this year. I mentioned that 30 April is Walpurgisnacht. I also mentioned that it wouldn’t be reasonable just to assume that all three remaining band members will be well enough or even alive four months hence to play the gig, so if I did decide to go ahead ticket insurance would be a must!

I then mentioned that Motorhead’s drummer “Philthy” Phil Taylor had died recently and that Motorhead’s main man Lemmy had only the previous day (Christmas Eve) celebrated his 70th birthday. Rock music’s founders (excepting members of the 27 Club) are mostly still alive but getting well long in tooth and claw.

My brother then morbidly observed that we can expect half of the big rock legends of our youth to die in the next ten years, and the other half to die in the ten years after that. At the rate of about one per week.

Teach us to number our days, that we may gain a heart of wisdom. (NIV)

We didn’t care to speculate who would be next, but by a strange coincidence it was Lemmy himself! You can read my co-blogger Tim’s wonderful tribute to Lemmy here.

And then David Bowie! You can read my co-blogger Blair’s wonderful tribute to Bowie soon. 🙂

The day a person dies is better than the day he was born.

It is better to go to a funeral than to a party.

We all must die. Everyone living should think about this. (ICB)

I confess. I’m not even a big fan of Motorhead (or Lemmy’s original band, Hawkwind). But I still enjoy listening to them from time to time, of course, what self-respecting metalhead doesn’t?!

I’m not even a fan of Bowie at all. Well, I thought I wasn’t. But now I’ve been given the opportunity to peruse his back catalogue, it’s amply confirmed what I always knew about David Bowie. He’s out of this world talented. So put me down as a small fan of David Bowie. 🙂

So I just thought I’d share some Bowie gems.

You can keep up with who’s rockin’ and rollin’ six feet under here. (We’ve lost a few smaller rock legends since Christmas too, inlcuding Stevie Wright, John Bradbury and Robert Stigwood.)

Babes and Ball Crushers.

Nice! A Beautiful woman taking full advantage of her Femininity.

The following is an exert From a ‘New Statesman’ article…

‘Of course all men don’t hate women. But all men must know they benefit from sexism.’

“This is going to hurt. In the past few months, it has been almost impossible to open a newspaper or turn on a television without encountering a story about another under-age girl being raped, another female politician harassed, another trans woman murdered. But as women, girls and a growing number of male allies start speaking out against sexism and injustice, a curious thing is happening: some people are complaining that speaking about prejudice is itself a form of prejudice.

These days, before we talk about misogyny, women are increasingly being asked to modify our language so we don’t hurt men’s feelings. Don’t say, “Men oppress women” – that’s sexism, as bad as any sexism women ever have to handle, possibly worse. Instead, say, “Some men oppress women.” Whatever you do, don’t generalise. That’s something men do. Not all men – just some men.

This type of semantic squabbling is a very effective way of getting women to shut up. After all, most of us grew up learning that being a good girl was all about putting other people’s feelings ahead of our own. We aren’t supposed to say what we think if there’s a chance it might upset somebody else or, worse, make them angry. So we stifle our speech with apologies, caveats and soothing sounds. We reassure our friends and loved ones that “you’re not one of those men who hate women”.

What we don’t say is: of course not all men hate women. But culture hates women, so men who grow up in a sexist culture have a tendency to do and say sexist things, often without meaning to. We aren’t judging you for who you are but that doesn’t mean we’re not asking you to change your behaviour. What you feel about women in your heart is of less immediate importance than how you treat them on a daily basis.

You can be the gentlest, sweetest man in the world yet still benefit from sexism. That’s how oppression works. Thousands of otherwise decent people are persuaded to go along with an unfair system because it’s less hassle that way. The appropriate response when somebody demands a change in that unfair system is to listen, rather than turning away or yelling, as a child might, that it’s not your fault. And it isn’t your fault. I’m sure you’re lovely. That doesn’t mean you don’t have a responsibility to do something about it.

Read more >>>here<<< if you must. ^^^^Whiny Pseudo-Feminist Bullshit Saith I! Esp in New Zealand and the West. We are not talking about the severe oppression of woman in Islamic nations. The feminists in those countries are *Real Activists for equality* fighting *Real Sexism*. We are talking about the Delusion of oppression in countries like New Zealand, Australia, Brittan, etc. Countries in which We actually have the reverse! Woman get special treatment. We have Laws which give Woman advantages and oppress men. Most of what the feminists in western nations bleat about is not about oppression but about Freedom! They are typically Butt ugly Lefty Hot-woman haters and Ball crushers... Notice how the article attempts to lay collective blame upon *all men* as complicit in this 'Sexual tyranny'. Notice how it attempts to nullify the truth... that it is only *a minority* of men who rape, etc. funny-feminist-meme-girl

Pseudo-Feminists seek to De-sex themselves and Men… yet they still want men to treat them like ladies and to be Manly…. It’s utter confusion!
Its a travesty!


Equality means Woman should be prepared to be hit on at work and have their breast comment on and to allow men to have titty calendars up in their workshops… and to hear sexist jokes because that’s freedom and equality.

I’m not suggesting Men ought to behave like that but that such behaviour does not represent ‘oppression.
Most of the time it’s just light humour of the same sort as Men poke at each other.
At worst it’s just bad manors and crass.

Men dont care if woman have Calenders of ‘half naked men in their office… or tell feminist jokes or get hit on by female co-workers….

Of course it is the right of employers to govern such things as Calenders, etc in the work place and to foster a culture where everyone feels comfortable .
What I am griping about is the new culture of Complaint when a feminist goes into a Man’s domain and then complains to Management about a Girlie calendar on a Guys work station.


Feminists make up a large percentage of the Vocal support restore and to maintain the prohibition of prostitution, and to ban Pornography… which are Laws which remove woman’s rights over their own bodies.


*What feminists want is not equality and freedom* but Special advantages and to oppress men for being men.
It sux and it makes woman into ugly He-woman… a type of transvestite!

fem 3

I am not saying *All large plain Janes are like this. Many are not.
Many are not bitter and twisted Men haters.
Yet There is a good reason why Feminists are stereotyped as Big fat ugly women with bad attitudes.
Why these particular types Hate prostitutes and strippers.
Hate beautiful woman being ogled at.
It’s because they are driven by *Envy* and lack of self esteem.
They blame Men and Hot chicks for their own obesity!
Truly most Western feminists are uglier on the inside than on the out!

I’m not even suggesting woman ought to be prostitutes, strippers, or Porn stars.
I am saying that such things are within their legitimate rights and liberties.
I’m a Christian and as such I believe sex workers *devalue them selves*… yet because the world is the way it is… I can appreciate and respect why they do it.
I have far more respect and admiration for sex workers than for Dole bludgers.
To my way of thinking a dollar earned by sex work is an honest Dollar, as it allows them to take care of themselves and to provide for their kids, etc.
You see plenty of woman take full advantage of their beauty and femininity… as Models, Promo Girls, and in the entertainment industry.
Many get rich and famous because of it.
The reality in the West is that most of the so-called Feminism in the movement is not about getting equal rights for woman. Its a Bogus ‘charade Feminism’… a Front… for large numbers of Fat, ugly, Nasty woman to hate on Men and their more beautiful contemporaries who have taken the trouble to Keep them selves in shape and looking their best… and wield formidable Sexual power.
(Take care Babes… The love of Money… and power Corrupts!)

amy lee palmer
Kiwi Model Amy Lee Palmer

fem 2

There are no Laws in NZ which says Woman must accept lower pay than men.
There are no Laws in New Zealand against woman becoming Mechanics and Engineers, Truck drivers etc.
The fact is that for what ever reason woman choose not to engage in these types of occupation.
This disparity is Freedom at work.
The fact is that you ought not to require Political coercion to achieve a higher order of civilisation.
If some people think this is wrong then they ought to try and start a cultural revolution via preaching and sharing their values and vision, not to lobby for restrictions on Liberty.
If ultimately they are ignored because Society does not desire to change or embrace their opinion
that’s simply ‘Hard Cheese’ for them.
They have no legitimate rights to impose their opinions upon society via Anti-freedom legislations.


Like most men I Love woman!
In my dealings with them at work and in my private life I attempt to treat them with the utmost respect no matter whether I find them attractive or not.
I take care not to allow myself to be governed by my own sexual drives and opinions.
I respect competence, intelligence, ethics, and nouse.
IMO A woman’s attitude is what is the most important thing.
A sexy woman with a nasty, demanding, Cold or Narcissistic attitude is *Not sexy!*…. she’s a Monster as far as I’m concerned.
And a woman who may be considered plain or overweight is far more appealing when they are happy within themselves and not consumed with envy and jealousy… when they actually enjoy being treated as an equal… laughs and enjoys Boys being boys in her presence… takes no offence at Blonde jokes, and does not get nasty when Men take notice of beautiful woman.
That is an emancipated woman.

Tim Wikiriwhi.

Read more about this here >>>> The mother of Invention?

Feminism, Lisa Lewis, and the death of romance.

Meet a Real Feminist with a legitimate cause here >>>> “If I don’t speak, who will?” Malala Yousafzai, 14

I’m a Real Feminist myself! >>>> Standing up for Justice more important than Personal Ambitions

Die Like a Beagle


Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is:
“Because the animals are like us.”

Ask the experimenters why it is morally OK to experiment on animals, and the answer is:
“Because the animals are not like us.”

Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction.

— Charles R. Magel

Party pills testing will mean dogs have to die. That was the headline when what is now the Psychoactive Substances Act made its first splash in the Parliamentary pan. Thanks to public protest and some hard work by the Greens and a few like-minded Labour MPs there are now tight restrictions on the use of animal testing in the legislation. I think the Act now states that where there are alternatives to animal tests, those alternatives must be used. But what if there are no alternatives?

The Act establishes a Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority within the Ministry of Health. But the Psychoactive Substances Regulations aren’t in place yet. We know that manufacturers will be required to provide “sufficient pre-clinical and clinical information to satisfy an independent expert advisory committee that the product poses no more than a low risk of harm.” But we don’t know what that information is yet. And the devil is in the details.

The bottom line is that there is still no clause in the Act that guarantees that suppliers of psychoactive substances will NOT be required to test those substances on animals. There’s been a lot of sound and fury in Parliament, signifying nothing. The Psychoactive Substances Act is still a turd. Let’s flush it.

Please join me in protest on Tuesday 30 July. That’s when Parliament’s back. In Wellington there is a march organised by HUHA. The strategy is to come out strong and show our Parliamentarians that we’re not happy the moment they return.



Vote AGAINST the Psychoactive Substances Bill

Dear MP,

Please vote AGAINST the Psychoactive Substances Bill.

Animals must not experience suffering for economic or entertainment reasons.

It is morally abhorrent to me, as it is to John Banks and all right-thinking people, “that animals will be in pain and will die all in the name of people wanting to take drugs on the weekend.”

Not in my name.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Goode
Christian libertarian (who wants to take drugs on the weekend)


“Stoner Dog” is just an Internet meme. Let’s keep him that way!

Please email your MPs today with your message, here is a list of names and email addresses.


John Banks <>

(OK, so John Banks doesn’t need any convincing, but you could try to convince him it would be a good idea to legalise cannabis. He’s been known to change his mind on human rights issues before.)


Russel Norman <>
Metiria Turei <>
Steffan Browning <>
David Clendon <>
Catherine Delahunty <>
Julie Genter <>
Kennedy Graham <>
Kevin Hague <>
Gareth Hughes <>
Jan Logie <>
Mojo Mathers <>
Denise Roche <>
Eugenie Sage <>
Holly Walker <>


Peter Dunne <>
Brendan Horan <>


Jacinda Ardern <>
Carol Beaumont <>
David Clark <>
Clayton Cosgrove <>
David Cunliffe <>
Clare Curran <>
Lianne Dalziel <>
Ruth Dyson <>
Kris Faafoi <>
Darien Fenton <>
Phil Goff <>
Chris Hipkins <>
Raymond Huo <>
Shane Jones <>
Annette King <>
Iain Lees-Galloway <>
Andrew Little <>
Moana Mackey <>
Nanaia Mahuta <>
Trevor Mallard <>
Sue Moroney <>
Damien Oconnor <>
David Parker <>
Rajen Prasad <>
Grant Robertson <>
Ross Robertson <>
David Shearer <>
Su’a William Sio <>
Maryan Street <>
Rino Tirikatene <>
Phil Twyford <>
Louisa Wall <>
Meka Whaitiri <>
Megan Woods <>


Hone Harawira <>


Pita Sharples <>
Tariana Turia <>
Te Ururoa Flavell <>


Amy Adams <>
Shane Ardern <>
Chris Auchinvole <>
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi <>
Maggie Barry <>
David Bennett <>
Paula Bennett <>
Chester Borrows <>
Simon Bridges <>
Gerry Brownlee <>
Cam Calder <>
David Carter <>
Jonathan Coleman <>
Judith Collins <>
Jacqui Dean <>
Bill English <>
Chris Finlayson <>
Craig Foss <>
Paul Foster-Bell <>
Paul Goldsmith <>
Jo Goodhew <>
Tim Groser <>
Nathan Guy <>
Claudette Hauiti <>
John Hayes <>
Phil Heatley <>
Tau Henare <>
Paul Hutchison <>
Steven Joyce <>
Nikki Kaye <>
John Key <>
Colin King <>
Melissa Lee <>
Sam Lotu-Iiga <>
Tim Macindoe <>
Todd McClay <>
Murray McCully <>
Ian McKelvie <>
Mark Mitchell <>
Alfred Ngaro <>
Simon Oconnor <>
Hekia Parata <>
Jami-Lee Ross <>
Eric Roy <>
Tony Ryall <>
Mike Sabin <>
Katrina Shanks <>
Scott Simpson <>
Nick Smith <>
Lindsay Tisch <>
Anne Tolley <>
Chris Tremain <>
Louise Upston <>
Nicky Wagner <>
Kate Wilkinson <>
Maurice Williamson <>
Michael Woodhouse <>
Jian Yang <>
Jonathan Young <>


Asenati Lole-Taylor <>
Tracey Martin <>
Denis O’Rourke <>
Winston Peters <>
Richard Prosser <>
Barbara Stewart <>
Andrew Williams <>


Thank God for the Greens




Credit where credit’s due. Credit is due to the Greens—in particular, to Green MPs Kevin Hague, Mojo Mathers and Metiria Turei—for their input into the Psychoactive Substances Bill, which has its third and final reading on Thursday.

I endorse the Green Party minority view on animal testing. Here it is.

Animal testing

The introduction of a requirement that psychoactive substances are proven to be relatively safe before being sold in New Zealand inevitably creates the requirement for a whole new area of product safety testing. It is unsurprising that this has given rise to very significant concern from New Zealanders who oppose the cruel treatment of animals and who believe that testing of these products on animals in order to establish safety is unnecessary and, indeed, inferior to alternative methods. This view has widespread public support, as public opinion polls on the subject have demonstrated, and many individuals and organisations received encouragement from the Minister and others to express their concerns in submissions to the select committee.

However, on 8 May 2013 the Health Committee Chair ruled that all submissions received on the subject of animal testing were outside the scope of the bill, and these submissions were returned to those who made them without being considered. By a majority the committee decided to reject a Green Party motion to hear evidence from these submitters even if their submissions were out of scope. It is the Green Party’s very strong view that both of these decisions were wrong.

The Clerk of the House had provided advice that amendments to the bill that sought to outlaw product testing on animals were out of scope. However, nearly all of the submissions that were rejected raised issues that could have been addressed by an amendment to the bill to prohibit the use of information derived from animal testing in an application for a licence. The Clerk has advised that such an amendment would clearly be in scope, and the Green Party believes that it was therefore manifestly wrong to refuse to hear public submissions on the matter.

Belatedly the committee did receive advice from the chair of the Interim Psychoactive Substances Expert Advisory Committee, which had been asked by the Minister to comment on the animal testing issues, but which also did not have access to the submissions that had been rejected by the Health Committee chair. That advice was that the interim committee does not believe substances can be established to be low risk without animal testing. This effectively introduces a requirement that there be animal testing data for licence applications, and this new requirement has been introduced entirely without any views from the general public, animal welfare organisations or experts (except those who happen to be on the interim committee).

The Green Party believes this to be profoundly unsatisfactory. In our view, with the initial decision to reject these submissions having been shown to be in error, the correct course of action would have been to reopen submissions on this specific matter.

In the absence of a select committee hearing these submissions, the Green Party invited those individuals and organisations who wished to have their voice heard to do so in a separate hearing. We found as follows:

Non-animal tests are available and more accurate

Evidence was heard that many countries do not use animal testing for pre-clinical trials for safety because the results from non-animal testing are more reliable. The New Zealand Anti-Vivisection Society (NZAVS) said that in 2008 the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institute of Health, and the Food and Drug Administration started a process to replace all toxicology testing on animals with non-animal techniques to produce results that are more relevant to humans.

Submitters talked about other countries that use these non-animal testing programmes as a preference to animal testing. Evidence was presented that the data from animal testing was actually less reliable in safety testing than non-animal testing. It was argued that if the bill allows for the lower quality data from animal testing to be acceptable evidence of safety then human health would be put at risk.

NZAVS gave evidence about the Ministry of Health’s proposed testing regime and outlined in detail the non-animal testing options that are available to provide an adequate, if not superior, guarantee of safety.

A safety testing regime would include four stages:

  • manufacturing and controls information

  • preclinical toxicology studies

  • human clinical studies

  • post registration surveillance

It is this pre-clinical testing where animal testing would be used.

The initially proposed pre-clinical testing involves four proposed parts, each of which has well regarded non-animal testing options.

Type of testing Non-animal option
Acute toxicity
  • Ames Test

  • Neutral Red Uptake Assay

  • In vitro micronucleus assay as required by Health Canada

  • 3D models with cultured human cells

  • Computer models

Repeat dose toxicity
  • Various in vitro human cell line studies e.g. liver, lungs, bone marrow (tests for effects on the immune system)

  • Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) computer modelling

Toxicokinetic investigations
  • Cell line tests

  • In vitro absorption tests e.g. Caco-2 cells

  • Computer modelling

  • In vitro assays on hepatocytes (liver cells)

  • Physiologically Based Toxicokinetic (PBTK) modelling

  • Ames test

  • In vitro cell gene mutation test

  • In vitro chromosomal aberration test

  • In vitro cell micronucleus test

New Zealand’s international reputation is at risk

It was argued by submitters that New Zealand is known as an innovative country with a reputation for good animal welfare. Submitters said that developing legislation which allows for unnecessary animal testing will damage this reputation, especially given that there is an international trend towards avoiding animal testing wherever possible. SAFE submitted that this is an opportunity to avoid risking our reputation and to enhance our reputation as an innovative and ethical country.

Submitters also gave evidence that other countries are looking to New Zealand’s development of regulation of psychoactive substances as a potential model for their own regulation. Some of these countries also do not allow animal testing of recreational drugs. If they choose to follow the model developed in this bill as it stands they will adapt it to fit their bans on animal testing of recreational drugs.

NZAVS gave evidence gained from an Official Information Act request of correspondence between the chair of the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee and her equivalent in the United Kingdom that showed the UK ban on animal testing would also apply to psychoactive substances.

Animal testing is ethically and morally questionable

One submission from an animal rescue organisation, Helping You Help Animals (HUHA), talked about the pain and discomfort that these sorts of tests inflict on animals. Their organisation was involved with rescuing dogs from an animal testing facility and they witnessed serious damage and harm to those animals.

They spoke about their experiences of working with some people who carry out animal testing who had been overexposed to animal suffering and had lost their empathy when it came to the animals under their care.

Submitters told the hearings that unless it was ruled out in the bill, then animal testing would most likely be carried out in other countries, some of which have no animal welfare regulations and so the conditions can be assumed to be worse.

A number of countries already ban non-medical animal testing from an ethical standpoint. Toxicity testing is particularly painful experimentation. Submitters argued that the consideration of this bill is the chance for New Zealand to draw an ethical line on this issue.

Cost implications of non-animal testing

The cost of alternatives to animal testing is significantly higher. Because the cost of safety testing for a product will be carried by the manufacturers, not the Government, submitters argued that this higher cost of non-animal testing creates an incentive for animal testing to be used.

In fact, the point was made that if the bill does not rule out the use of data from animal testing then the cost difference will ensure that manufacturers use the cheapest method to provide evidence, and that will be animal testing regardless of the quality of that evidence.

Submitters spoke about the dominance of animal testing in the industry in New Zealand—it is the norm, rather than a last resort. Evidence was received to show that this is also the case in some countries such as China where a large amount of contract animal testing is undertaken.

There was evidence presented by submitters that, if data from animal testing is ruled out, businesses will adapt their practices and the cost of non-animal testing will drop as demand for these tests increases and capacity to undertake these tests develops.


The Green Party recommends that an amendment should be made to the Psychoactive Substances Bill to exclude the use of new information gained through animal testing as evidence in determining the safety of an application.

(Disclaimer. I’m not a big fan of the Greens as a general rule. Their economic and environmental polices are whack. A Green government would be ruinous for New Zealand. But, at times like this, I’m very glad that the Greens have a Parliamentary presence.)

A big thanks to John Banks


Here’s today’s press release from John Banks, and a transcript of his speech to Parliament.


Banks Challenges Greens To Take Stand On Animal Welfare
Press Release By ACT Leader John Banks
Thursday, June 27 2013

ACT Party Leader John Banks today challenged the Green Party to stand by its principles on animal welfare.

Mr Banks says if the Greens truly care about animals, they should make a commitment to vote against the Psychoactive Substances Bill if Mojo Mathers’ amendment to rule out animal testing fails.

“There is simply no justifiable reason for unnecessary drugs to be tested on animals. They are not a lifesaving medicine, or something that will relieve suffering. People take these substances just for fun.

“Evidence shows animal testing is not necessary to prove the safety of mind altering chemicals, yet poor beagle puppies are being bred so these drugs can be tested.

“These puppies will be put in extreme pain, they will suffer and many will die – just so people can take recreational drugs on the weekend. I find that completely unacceptable.

“The Greens have been vocal in their opposition to animal cruelty. The Greens’ animal welfare policy states:

‘Experiments on animals should only be used where they are overwhelmingly beneficial and do not cause animal suffering’ and;

‘Animals must not experience suffering for economic or entertainment reasons’

“Green MP Mojo Mathers’ amendment to rule out animal testing for psychoactive substances is sensible and has my full support. But what if her amendment fails to get the numbers?

“The Greens have not made any commitment to vote against the Bill and may end up supporting it regardless. That’s not good enough.

“I have campaigned for animal rights all my life and that’s why I am taking a stance against this Bill. If the Greens truly believe their own animal welfare policies, they should follow suit,” Mr Banks said.



Psychoactive Substances Bill – Second Reading
Speech by ACT Leader John Banks
Thursday, June 27 2013

I rise to oppose the Psychoactive Substances Bill.

This bill is well intentioned and aimed at ensuring psychoactive substances sold in New Zealand are as safe as possible. I want to pay respect to the Minister Todd McClay for his noble intentions with this bill.

However, I simply cannot support it.

I find it totally unacceptable that this bill fails to rule out testing these recreational drugs on innocent animals.

Protecting animals is ingrained in my soul.

I think most New Zealanders will be outraged at the idea that chemicals people use ‘just for fun’ can be and will be tested on harmless animals.

Animals will be put in extreme pain. Animals will suffer. Animals will die.

We must remember psychoactive substances are not a necessity.

Recreational drugs are not something one needs to consume. They aren’t lifesaving medicines or something that will relieve suffering. People don’t NEED to take them.

Their prolific use will cause widespread animal suffering.

There is simply no justifiable reason for unnecessary drugs to be tested on animals, and I for one find it deeply offensive that any Government would sanction it.

Animals will be in pain and will die all in the name of people wanting to take drugs on the weekend. That is simply unacceptable.
Animals must not experience suffering for economic or entertainment reasons.

I know the Select Committee inserted a new clause in the bill to state that animal testing should only be used when necessary, but that is not good enough.

Especially considering the Select Committee refused to hear from organisations such as SAFE and the RSPCA about the impact of animal testing.

Evidence shows animal testing is not necessary to prove the safety of these mind alerting chemicals.

Dr Ian Shaw of the University of Canterbury says non-animal testing can adequately establish whether a substance has unacceptable risks of acute toxicity.

Cell culture, ex vivo and SAR studies can all be used to establish the risks.

Even if animal testing was necessary, and I know the vast majority of New Zealanders will agree with me on this, I say tough luck to the drug manufacturers and their drug dealing distributors.

If you can’t prove your new found drug of choice is safe without putting animals in abject misery, you can’t sell your drug.

If you need to pay more for more expensive non-animal testing, again I say tough luck. That is the price you, who stand to profit from selling these drugs, must pay.

The reality is the bill could well result in drugs being test on animals in place such as China and India where animal welfare is shamefully non-existent.

The statement in the bill that overseas testing must be carried out in accordance with the New Zealand Animal Welfare Act is nonsense because there is no way for us to assess what goes on in the torture chambers of animal testing laboratories in Asia.

Despite assurances from former Minister Peter Dunne, this bill fails to rule to the use of the extremely cruel LD50 test.

These animal testing places test their drugs on man’s best friend – dogs. Or, more specifically, farmed Beagle puppies. These animals trust us, and expect to get care and love. It is obscene.

I also want to comment on the Interim Psychoactive Substances Expert Advisory Committee, and one of its members Bob Kerridge from the RSPCA.

The committee was tasked with advising about the use of animal testing.

Some have said that Mr Kerridge’s place on the committee and the committee’s view that animal testing should be condoned reveals that animal welfare groups support this bill. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I want to place on record what Mr Kerridge said to me:

‘It is a matter of record that I am opposed to any animal testing for the approval of psychoactive products, and my presence on this Committee does not alter or condone it.”

Those who have fought for many years for the rights of animals, such as SAFE and the RSPCA are outraged by this bill and it is disingenuous to say anything different.

Finally, I want to thank Mojo Mathers for her work on this bill. I will be supporting her amendment to prohibit the use of data, collected from testing on animals here or overseas, being used to support an application to get a psychoactive substance approved. It is a sensible amendment which will protect defenceless animals.

But I say to her and her Green Party colleagues, if your amendment at Committee stage fails to get the numbers, you should vote against this bill anyway.

The Green Party has been very vocal in its animal rights stance. If you truly believe your own policies you should be standing against this bill.

We are sacrificing Beagle puppies at the altar of recreational drug use. It is a disgrace to this country.

As the most powerful creatures on this Earth, humans have a responsibility to protect all animals from senseless, worthless and shameless cruelty at all times and in all places.


Thanks, John, for speaking out for those who can’t speak out for themselves.

Readers, please support Mojo Mathers amendment. (The most effective way you can do this is by emailing the Maori Party MPs. I’m reliably informed that whether or not her amendment gets included is likely to come down to the votes of the Maori Party.)